My opinions on matters of the day that, generally, have pissed me off.
Being described as a 'Surly Curmudgeon', by those who meet me on a good day, I have a poor regard for the human species.
This is my place for my free speech- not bloody yours. Crap under your own rock.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car burnings, etc.). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel". — Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Senior Constable Ian Henderson, of Wanaka, said a 15-year-old male and a female whose age was unknown had been at the Mount Aspiring College "Macstock" music concert in the Lake Wanaka Centre when they became seriously ill about 8pm..."

More MSM hysteria.

The condition is (or was) known as 'Pissed'

The best cure is to be left in the recovery position in a cold, damp and uncomfortable cell with other sufferers in a similar condition. A nice policeman will hose off the vomit and urine at about 0600 and bring a nutritious breakfast of warm lard and Tripe. Then he will repeat the cleansing process.

He will check that the patient(s) hearing is not impaired by addressing them in a loud voice.

A brisk walk home will then warm the body and clear the mind.

On the next working day, a magistrate will relieve the patient of surplus money, preventing a re-occurrence.

Note: This treatment will not ameliorate any perceived suffering, but will have a prophylactic effect and minimize future relapses.

"People who use cannabis before the age of 18 are more likely to end up with fewer academic qualifications, a study of more than 6000 New Zealanders and Australians shows.

The research, based on the findings of three studies, including Otago University's long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study, found those who used cannabis before they were 18 were more likely to drop out of high school, less likely to enter university and less likely to get a university degree.

People who used cannabis before the age of 15 were most likely not to achieve academically..."

Every day, ten men went to a restaurant for dinner. They always ordered the same meals, and the bill for their food always came to exactly $100.00. They did this day after day, year after year, without variation.

They did not divide the cost of the bill up equally among them, however. Since some of the men were more wealthy than others, they all agreed that an equal split would be unfair to those with less money. So, the men decided to pay the bill in precisely the same way we all pay our income taxes.

The first four men paid nothing at all. They ate for free. The fifth man paid $1.00; the sixth paid $3.00; the seventh paid $7.00; the eighth paid $12.00; the ninth paid $18.00. And the tenth man, who was by far the richest of them, paid exactly $59.00, which was most of the $100.00 bill. He didn't mind, however, since he could afford to pay that amount. All was well. The ten men were happy with this arrangement, and they continued to eat at the restaurant every single day, enjoying their time together.

Then one day... the owner of the restaurant threw them a curve. As they stood at the counter to pay their bill, he announced that he would reduce the cost of the meals for them. "Since you are all such great customers, and I am so appreciative of your business," he said, "I am going to reduce the total bill for your meals by $20.00. From now on, your ten dinners will cost you only $80.00."

The men were pleased. But the situation did present a problem. How were they to divvy up the savings among them? Obviously, they could not simply credit $2.00 (one-tenth of the $20.00 savings) to each of the ten men, since that would mean that the first four men would actually be getting paid $2.00 to eat! No good. It only seemed fair that the first four men, who paid nothing to begin with, should likewise not get any of this $20.00 refund. But still, there was a problem. If they now divided the $20.00 savings among the remaining six men, that would be $3.33 per man. If that amount were subtracted from each man's payment, then the fifth man and sixth man, who had been paying $1.00 and $3.00 respectively, would then be getting paid to eat. That wouldn't work, either. No, the solution to this problem required some ingenuity.

Just then, the restaurant owner, who had been listening to the discussion, interrupted. He offered a solution. He suggested that the fairest way to settle this dilemma would be to reduce each man's bill by the same proportion as he had been paying in the first place. The owner walked over to his calculator and figured out the amounts each man should pay. And so it was agreed.

The fifth man, instead of paying $1.00, now paid nothing, just like the first four men had always done. The sixth man paid $2.00 (reduced from $3.00); the seventh paid $5.00 (reduced from $7.00); the eighth paid $9.00 (reduced from $12.00); the ninth paid $12.00 (reduced from $18.00). This left the tenth man with a bill of $52.00, instead of his previous bill of $59.00. The men paid their bill according to this arrangement, and they left the restaurant, satisfied.

Outside the restaurant, however, the men began to compare their savings. The sixth man started complaining. "I only got one dollar out of the $20.00 savings. That's not much," he said. He pointed to the tenth man and declared, "And he got $7.00. What gives? That's not fair. He's rich. He doesn't need the money. Why did he get $7.00, when I only got $1.00?"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that the rich guy got seven times more than I did! I surely have a much greater need for money the he does."

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $7.00, when I got back only $2.00? That stinks! The wealthy get all the breaks. The rich just get richer."

"Wait a minute!" yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. Not one stinking cent! The rich fellow, who drives here every day in a Lexus, got $7.00, and we all take public transit to this restaurant, and we got nothing at all. This system exploits the poor." With that, the men became angry. "And I lost everything," said one of the four. "My wife left me, my daughter is in the hospital, and I can't get work. I could sure use a break. Instead, I got not one lousy penny of the $20.00, and I have to watch this guy who's filthy rich take $7.00 of it! I won't stand for it!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth. Their anger mounted as they continued to express their resentment at what they thought was a supreme injustice. Finally, they lost control of their senses. They beat up the tenth man. They left him bloody in the street, and they went home.

The next day, the tenth man did not show up for their regular dinner. The nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something: they were $52.00 short! Needless to say, that was the last time those men ever ate at that restaurant.

I wish I could say that these nine men learned a valuable lesson, that they came to understand the principle upon which a tax cut is based. But they didn't. They were too stupid to understand.

The nanny types and their lap dogs would have it that NZ has a piss problem and we are incapable of drinking in a civilized manner, as they do in Europe.

"Parisian authorities are trying to stop a mass cocktail party organised over the Internet and planned for the Eiffel Tower grounds, after a reveller died on Thursday at a gathering of 10,000 people in western France.

The death was the first on record as a result of "Facebook aperitifs" - giant outdoor drinking parties whose popularity has exploded across France in the last six months and which are organised over the online social network...

..The parties often turn into mass drinking binges, and police said the man who died on Thursday in the western city of Nantes had been drunk when he plunged head first over a parapet.

Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said the parties risked spiralling out of control and were aimed at enticing a maximum number of people to drink alcohol in public places..."

Saturday, May 15, 2010

I'm back on the Aitkins diet. This is my third time- I lose some, take a rest- usually from December- May, when the feasting season is on.

While I usually backslide a few kilos, I have been coming steadily down over the years.

Coming down to the tune of 32 kilos from my peak weight so far- now I'm nearing the home straight with the 90kg mark in sight for this years effort. I plan to finish at the mythical 'ideal' weight next year.

This diet is the one that works for me. I'm one of those folk that has their appetite switch stuck in the 'on' position and the high protien diet keeps the hunger pains down.

One of the great myths regarding this diet is that you can eat buckets of fat. It ain't so and if you do you will at best loose weight much slower. Sneak in carbohydrates and you will grow like a pumpkin on a midden.

I have found that the food pyramid promoted by nanny state is NOT right for me. My body works best with WAY less carbohydrate, especially bread, pasta and flour. I have more energy, are not half asleep for most of the morning, fart way less- in quantity and stench and my blood glucose tests are all now bang in the middle of the good range.

Meat, fish, cheese, eggs, greens and a few nuts. When I'm in maintenance, a couple of spuds a week and no more than one slice of bread a day. Occasionaly some berries & cream.

But the no drinking bit is a drag. After two weeks I can have a whiskey and soda though...

Napier woman Natalie Meehan said she was told to delete reference to her political science degree and apply for jobs at Pak'n Save supermarket and fast-food outlet KFC.

Work and Income has confirmed its staff suggested she remove reference to the degree.

The advice has "mortified" Ms Meehan, who says Work and Income staff feared potential employers would be intimidated by her CV. "I am really proud of my achievements and I don't want to delete them. I'm just a kid wanting to start my career and that wasn't the kind of advice I was expecting. I was told to make my CV look like I had no skills..."

WINZ were 100% right.

She was after a scut job, while waiting for another job.

The gave her the right advice for that.

Most employers would see a person with a degree in political sciences as somebody who would 'fit in' with the other underlings. An employer worth a damn tries to recruit perople who will be able to relate to and get along with those they will be working alongside. It's hard enough keeping the workplace wheels lubricated without throwing sand in the grease-gun.

Then there is the potential for overqualified types to become bush lawyers.

This chap has it right:

"Recruitment expert Tom O'Neil said sometimes people had to "bite the bullet" and make their CVs look basic, especially if they wanted only short-term work. "An employer might look at a CV and think, `This is a Ferrari' and they only want a Lada. There is also the risk the employer might feel like the potential employee is a threat to their own job. It's silly, but it happens..."

The last sentence is very true, nowhere more so that the public AKA taxpayer-funded sector.

"...But 64% described the reconstruction team's contribution to reconstruction as "poor" or "very poor", with only 34% saying that they or their family had benefited in any way from aid projects in which the PRT has been involved..."

I have an idea.

We pull the troops out and you go back to the benevolent ways of the Taliban- who will surely care for all your needs.

The reality is that Afghanistan is the Anvil, our troops are the Hammer and the Taliban are getting the shit beaten out of them.

Saturday, May 01, 2010

I was just reading a piece in the local localpaper, extolling the virtues of a educational program for 'young mothers'

In this piece they said 'often these young women are not supported by their partners.'

Well, if they don't support them, they ain't partners then.

Sperm donors are all they are. Don't call them Fathers either!

One would have to be an optimist if one thought these programs are going to be more sucessful than the ones on sex education in schools.

In this piece they spout the usual fluff about not being judgemental.

I believe the problem is that we are NOT being judgemental enough and are normalising, indeed encouraging, random acts of breeding by these shameless tarts and the feckless deadbeats that impregnate them.